News Round Up (Nov. 25)

So I'm watching the post-Thanksgiving morning news shows, debating with myself whether or not it would be a good thing if Roe fell, as many Presidential candidates hope for. On one hand, Roe being overturned would certainly be bad for access to abortion. On the other hand, if voters continuously choose to elect anti-choice legislators, why should they be immune from the consequences of those bad choices. Were Roe to fall, voters as well as legislators would have to walk the walk. Right now, for example, there's a man in Ohio that continuously gets re-elected, and his only issue is abortion. The people of Ohio are insulated by his election in part by the other Ohio legislators, but also, to a large extent, by the federal judiciary, upon whom we too greatly rely on for the protection of our rights. It's probably a little Old Testament of me, but I'm wondering if actually giving these anti-choicers more leeway won't actually mean that people eventually vote against them, once they have to deal with the consequences of the vote...

Parental Rights
In Kansas, a gay man agreed to donate sperm to a friend for artificial insemination. She filed papers to terminate his parental rights, which is appears is the default for Kansas sperm donors. He is fighting, and wants to be involved with the children and pay child support.
In the UK, a woman has received court permission to keep her pregnancy a secret from the man who impregnated her, as it was a one-night stand. The court ruled that she alone has the decision-making power regarding the adoption she seeks.

Comments

News Round Up (Nov. 25)

So I'm watching the post-Thanksgiving morning news shows, debating with myself whether or not it would be a good thing if Roe fell, as many Presidential candidates hope for. On one hand, Roe being overturned would certainly be bad for access to abortion. On the other hand, if voters continuously choose to elect anti-choice legislators, why should they be immune from the consequences of those bad choices. Were Roe to fall, voters as well as legislators would have to walk the walk. Right now, for example, there's a man in Ohio that continuously gets re-elected, and his only issue is abortion. The people of Ohio are insulated by his election in part by the other Ohio legislators, but also, to a large extent, by the federal judiciary, upon whom we too greatly rely on for the protection of our rights. It's probably a little Old Testament of me, but I'm wondering if actually giving these anti-choicers more leeway won't actually mean that people eventually vote against them, once they have to deal with the consequences of the vote...

Parental Rights
In Kansas, a gay man agreed to donate sperm to a friend for artificial insemination. She filed papers to terminate his parental rights, which is appears is the default for Kansas sperm donors. He is fighting, and wants to be involved with the children and pay child support.
In the UK, a woman has received court permission to keep her pregnancy a secret from the man who impregnated her, as it was a one-night stand. The court ruled that she alone has the decision-making power regarding the adoption she seeks.